Fdk, deliberate pass into an opponent (?)

[Balones]

I read it to mean any movement is a commencement to approach

That’s how I read it. I just feel we need a definition on what ‘a commencement to approach’ means in practice/application.

 

[crossref]

That’s how I read it. I just feel we need a definition on what ‘a commencement to approach’ means in practice/application.

I agree
If I was to define it I would say lifting a foot clear of the floor

 

[Volun-selected]

I think it must be only the movement of the feet that counts

Perhaps it's the action of lifting a foot from the floor

Same for me - I’ve always interpreted it as allowing the kicker to do their little set up ritual. Once the steps/shuffle/dance stops - there always seems to be at least a one or two-second pause - after that I treat any foot movement in any direction as commencing the attempt and they can be charged (and also the point at which if the ball falls off the tee they have to deal with it with oncoming defenders).

If enough people feel we need greater clarity then should we formalize this? That the kicker must signal they’re ready to commence by momentarily standing still after which they are deemed to have commenced approach once either foot is no longer in contact with the ground.

 

[Jz558]

From a kickers perspective there are two distinct parts to the kick. The set up involving placing, addressing the ball, stepping back and to the side (maybe throwing some grass) then the second part is the actual movement to kick the ball. In my view kickers have a responsibility to ensure the two parts are distinct from each other to avoid confusion. It is of course in their own interest to do (also like asking the referee's permission to advance towards a ball to replace it on the tee after it has fallen over). I have occasionally spoken to kickers after a kick to advise them that their 'routine' could be constured as commencement of the kick earlier than they think.

 

[crossref]

So how would we feel about transferring the responsibility to the ref

For lineouts we are all accustomed now to signal Arm up = stay where you are
Arm down = you can move

We could easily do the same for conversions

Indeed I know some refs do.

Should it be standard practice ?

(mods .. this could do with a thread split, now that the subject has changed )

 

[jdeagro]

From the law clarification link:

The Referee’s interpretation in this example was correct. The moment the kicker moves in any direction it is deemed that he is ‘approaching to kick’.

I always thought it was when the kicker moved forward, was considered the "approach". This clarification seems more ambiguous to me.

The kicker generally moves ("in any direction") shortly after they place the ball on the tee, when they start backing away from it to get to their spot before moving forward to kick. Obviously we know that would be too soon for a defender to charge, but the clarification seems to imply that would be ok?

 

[Phil E]

From the law clarification link:


I always thought it was when the kicker moved forward, was considered the "approach". This clarification seems more ambiguous to me.

The kicker generally moves ("in any direction") shortly after they place the ball on the tee, when they start backing away from it to get to their spot before moving forward to kick. Obviously we know that would be too soon for a defender to charge, but the clarification seems to imply that would be ok?

After setting the ball the kicker will go through their routine. At some point they will set themselves and become stationary. After that, any movement of the feet, in any direction, will indicate the charge can start.

 

[jdeagro]

After setting the ball the kicker will go through their routine. At some point they will set themselves and become stationary. After that, any movement of the feet, in any direction, will indicate the charge can start.

I agree. The law clarification does not distinct that logical part of the process though, rather makes it more ambiguous.

 

[BikingBud]

From a kickers perspective there are two distinct parts to the kick. The set up involving placing, addressing the ball, stepping back and to the side (maybe throwing some grass) then the second part is the actual movement to kick the ball. In my view kickers have a responsibility to ensure the two parts are distinct from each other to avoid confusion. It is of course in their own interest to do (also like asking the referee's permission to advance towards a ball to replace it on the tee after it has fallen over). I have occasionally spoken to kickers after a kick to advise them that their 'routine' could be constured as commencement of the kick earlier than they think.

The video from the clarification shows those distinct parts, we see the pause then the step back, and one might assume given the distinct nature of the kicker's action it was quite obvious to those reviewing the request that this was the kicker's "approach".

The request actually states:

"as the kicker stepped back as part of his kicking routine"

If the video had shown the kicker stepping back from the ball to the "start position" and the charge down commencing then, it might have been a differing response.

Is it something to coach out of kickers?

 

[smeagol]

The video from the clarification shows those distinct parts, we see the pause then the step back, and one might assume given the distinct nature of the kicker's action it was quite obvious to those reviewing the request that this was the kicker's "approach".

The request actually states:

If the video had shown the kicker stepping back from the ball to the "start position" and the charge down commencing then, it might have been a differing response.

Is it something to coach out of kickers?

I think the time to coach it out of kickers was a long time ago, but IMO now the cat is out of the bag.

WR need to explicitly put a stop to it with a law clarification for that to change.

 

[didds]

I think the time to coach it out of kickers was a long time ago, but IMO now the cat is out of the bag.

WR need to explicitly put a stop to it with a law clarification for that to change.

Ot not stop the backward step, but c;larify the approach starts with a motion TOWARDS the ball.


alternatively etc

 

[Jz558]

Ot not stop the backward step, but c;larify the approach starts with a motion TOWARDS the ball.


alternatively etc

I seem to remember that the clarification was issued because the old wording in law (paraphrased) said that the defending team could charge when the kicker began their approach to kick which some people took to mean 'motion towards'. The clarification and now wording in law says 'moves in any direction to begin their approach'. Personally I thought the clarification was very clear and overdue as there was genuine confusion before. Changing it back, so soon afterwards would surely only add to the confusion.

 

[didds]

Fair point. NP

 

[Stu10]

My main concern with calling this a PK is whether the player intentionally interfered with play. I would have thought that the relevant section here is 10.9 10.10 & 10.11 which refer to retiring after a TRM etc, not the offside in general play. The examples WR show in that section of the law both show deliberate interference or actions undertaken by the player which prevents the attacking side to use the ball as they wish, not a player regaining their feet. The law even states that a player needs to immediately retire to an onside position, meaning that the laws intend players to attempt to regain an onside position, not just wait for the game to move away. If, as some believe, a player who is retiring is offside if they get hit with a ball regardless of their actions, then we won't see more than a couple of phases in a good field position until the attackers get a defender into an offside position and a ball gets thrown into them and they go for three points.

For mine it's not in the spirit of the laws and certainly feels like a gotcha rather than a highly dynamic and exciting sport.

I agree with this... I'm looking at Law 10, as you have...

Law 10.4

1. An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
   1. Interferes with play; or
   2. Moves forwards towards the ball; or
   3. Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.

Law 10.11

1. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
   1. Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or
   2. Interferes with play; or
   3. Moves towards the ball.

An offside player may be penalised if they interfere with play... simply being in an offside position does not automatically warrant a penalty, IMHO. A player flat on the floor and not interfering with play should not be penalised.

 

[crossref]

I]

An offside player may be penalised if they interfere with play... simply being in an offside position does not automatically warrant a penalty, IMHO. A player flat on the floor and not interfering with play should not be penalised.

Conversely a player standing still , in the 9 10 channel , is interfering just by being there

 

[Stu10]

Conversely a player standing still , in the 9 10 channel , is interfering just by being there

Absolutely agree